Landmark Designation and the
Churches of New York

Page Cowley

West-Park Presbyterian Church (chapel by Leopold Eidlitz, 1884, sanctuary by Henry F Kilburn, 1890, completing
the Eidlitz design): This church was recently designated a New York City landmark, a victory for the community,
but a potential loss for the presbytery. Some form of tenant partnership will be needed to offset the cost of repair
and rehabilitation and share the maintenance of the property.

The listing of a historic place of
worship in the UK is usually considered
a good news story. In contrast, when
historic religious properties in New York
City (the five boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx,
Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island) are
considered for the US equivalent, landmark
designation, the response of interested
parties is likely to be more discordant.

New York’s Landmarks Preservation
Commission was established in 1965 when
Mayor Robert Wagner signed the local law
which created the commission and gave it
its power. The enactment of The Landmarks
Law reflected mounting popular pressure to
prevent the loss of important elements of the
city’s built heritage, notably the 1963 demolition
of the vast neoclassical Pennsylvania Station.
Once a landmark has been ‘designated’ any
action taken thereafter must be submitted to
an agency and/or go before a public review
process to determine whether the proposed
action is likely to have an adverse effect.

That the seemingly innocuous accolade
of ‘landmark’ should cause alarm is indicative
of the anxiety generated when further
governmental intervention and oversight
of private property is required, especially
when applied to non-profit or religious
institutions. Turning a venerated building
into a landmark is a public process that
often pits advocates for historic preservation
against the potential financial opportunity
of building owners or managers.

This article considers the key issues
associated with the designation and
preservation of New York City’s historic houses
of worship. While reference is made to other
faiths and denominations, the article primarily
focuses on the city’s Anglican churches.

MEETING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN

In New York City, as in many urban centres
in the US, there is a tendency to assume that
religious properties will survive or remain
unchanged, as though they were immune to
the boom and bust cycles of urban property
development. On the contrary, houses of
worship are equally affected by difficult
economic times. They are equally subject
to escalating operating and maintenance
costs and at times it can be difficult for
congregations to raise the necessary funds
to further mission and outreach projects.
Religious institutions can also struggle to
preserve or maintain their property as a result
of unpredictable internal causes: income waning
as a result of an aging membership, changing
demographics, or falling attendance. These
internal factors can influence the financial
stability and growth of congregations.

When houses of worship do run into
trouble, it can be some time before the
wider community becomes aware of the
fact. Successful and active congregations can
easily be taken for granted by their non-member
neighbours; as long as a property is maintained and used it attracts little attention.
However, deteriorating interiors, defective
heating, plumbing and electrical conditions
can collectively develop into insurmountable
problems requiring radical solutions including
the sale of the property. And when financial
burdens become too great, become publicised
and even politicised, it is often too late to
offer financial assistance, even if there is a
rush from the public to ‘rescue’ a house of
worship. All too often, generous gestures are
neither enough to change the financial outlook
nor to solve the internal issues that caused
the decline. Furthermore, offers of assistance
are often interpreted as interference.

When a local community gets involved
in the fate of a neighbourhood church which
is deemed at risk, they create additional
pressures on the church congregation and
administration. The community’s well-intentioned
efforts to find tenants, raise funds,
and/or press for designation complicate the
congregation’s decision-making process. This
can delay landmark designation for decades
or force the church’s sale or even demolition.

In the case of West-Park Presbyterian
Church (illustrated above), a 20-year
battle between the congregation and the
neighbourhood ended in 2010 with landmark
designation, but at the potential price of
losing the congregation. Designation had
been opposed by the church leadership, which
wanted to demolish part of the building –
already closed due to deterioration – for a new
development. The church’s pastor described the
decision as an infringement of religious liberty
(‘City Council Upholds Landmark Status of
West Side Church’, Robin Pogrebin, The New
York Times, 12 May 2010). A massive effort is
under way by advocacy groups including the
council member representing the district to
raise funds to repair the church exterior while
the congregation and presbytery at large seek
a solution for their occupancy of the interior.

Clearly, the relationship between an ‘at
risk’ church and its non-member community
is fraught with difficulty. One pastor on the
Upper West Side of Manhattan has suggested
that, rather than trying to rescue the church
from without, community members could
offer much more effective support by joining
the congregation and providing support
from within. In any event, churches and
communities increasingly need to find common
ground and work in partnership if mutually
acceptable solutions are to be found.

There are, of course, success stories too.
Indeed some congregations seem to thrive
under pressure to raise money to upgrade
or preserve their buildings, or to fund
outreach and other projects. Madison Avenue
Presbyterian Church, for example, drafted
an extensive master plan and undertook a
fundraising campaign culminating in the
comprehensive restoration and rehabilitation
of its property in the late 1990s (top left).

Other churches have been able to secure
grant funding to supplement their own
fundraising efforts. St Andrew’s Episcopal
Church, Harlem (below right), was in need of major exterior
repairs to a slate roof. Through the Episcopal
Diocese Property Support Office, which helps
congregations to help themselves to care for
their buildings and grounds, both technical
and financial assistance were provided.
The congregation raised a proportionate
share of the restoration cost.

St Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Harlem (Henry M Congdon, 1873).
Congdon designed this church on a site 2½ blocks away from the present
site on Fifth Avenue. Rather than abandon the church at the original site
when the congregation found a more prestigious location, Congdon was
retained 16 years later to dismantle the church and re-build it on the
new site, where the tower height was increased and a clock added.

SHARING SPACE TO RAISE RENTAL REVENUES

One way for religious properties to boost
dwindling revenues is to offer space for
rental. For many houses of worship the idea
of sharing a sacred place with secular uses is
unpalatable, so typically, it is only when the
house of worship has a secondary communal
space that sharing is considered an option.
Some churches find it relatively easy to rent
out their non-sacred spaces because they
are located close to schools or community
groups that have no permanent home.

Religious properties are perceived as
inexpensive because they are non-profit, and
this can reduce the rent per square foot that
churches can demand. Placing a value on a
church building and equating the cost per
square foot for fair market rental can also be
problematic as for-profit and not-for-profit
users sharing space may not be compatible
in terms of tax codes. While sharing space
has many benefits, it should be noted that
additional property management and the
responsibilities of being a landlord can impose
other burdens on the congregations, trustees
and administrators of the religious property.

One often overlooked success story is
St Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery (1795),
which re-invented itself in the 1960s and
opted for non-profit partners as tenants. Its
setting is remarkable and the old churchyard,
with its ledger-type grave stones set into the
cobblestones, hosts a variety of festivals and
cultural events. The Parish House is now the
Neighbourhood Preservation Centre, whose
tenants include the Historic Districts Council,
The Greenwich Village Historical Society
and the St Mark’s Historic Landmark Fund.
The church is multicultural and describes
itself as ‘not only a house of worship, but
a centre for modern dance, experimental
theatre and poetry and a community gathering
place for the Lower East Side’.

AIR RIGHTS AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Another tempting source of funding is through
development. Before the credit crunch began
to bite in 2007, fierce competition for property
in established neighbourhoods, particularly
Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn, had
been ongoing for decades. The potential for
high financial rewards for new residential and
commercial development spurred the search
for underused or ‘soft’ sites. These are plots of
land with potential for further development
under the relevant zoning regulations, giving
the owners the right to redevelop their site
with a larger building if they wish. Needless
to say, in areas of dense urban development
these rights are highly prized. Religious
properties are now coveted by a new category
of property developers for their enlargement
and improvement potential because of their
location, often in gentrified neighbourhoods.

Developers recognise that houses of
worship are often short of funds, and that
maintaining historic buildings can be expensive. One way that developers can enhance projects
on sites adjacent to landmarked religious
properties is through the purchase or leasing
of ‘air rights’. This transferral of potential
development concerns the empty space
above a building – its air rights. Depending
on the limits imposed in a particular zoning
area, square footage that cannot be used
on the original site may be ‘transferred’ to
enable a developer to build a larger building
on an adjacent site. Effectively, the church is
selling the difference between the actual built
floor area on its plot and the maximum it is
allowed under local zoning regulations. This
might mean, for example, that the purchasing
developer adjacent to the church is allowed to
build a 55 storey building instead of a 30 storey
building (pending approval by the Department
of City Planning and the Board of Standards and
Appeals for the appropriate zoning waivers).

By selling air rights in this way, the
owners of historic churches in New York
City have been able to receive considerable
compensation without physical loss of their
assets and, from the community’s perspective,
the increase in density is often considered a
fair trade to preserve an important building
and a valued element of the streetscape.
The ‘transfer’ of floor area from one site to
another can upset the scale and character of a
residential neighbourhood, but there is rarely
opposition when it involves a religious site.

One of the more successful air rights
transfers benefitted the Church of the
Transfiguration, also known as ‘the Little
Church Around the Corner’ (1849). Although
the original parish house was demolished to
make way for a 55-storey luxury apartment
building, the latter incorporates a new three-storey
parish house completed in 2008. The
courtyard and the lych-gate designed by
Frederick Clarke Withers remain (illustrated towards the bottom of this page).

The trend of churches selling sell air rights
is gaining momentum. Despite the
economic downturn in real estate, developers
are assembling parcels to capitalise on their
investment by building taller. One recent
project is close to Times Square at the Church
of the Holy Cross, (Henry Englebert, 1854).
Developers were permitted to build more
floors at an adjacent site in a complicated real
estate deal that included upgrading off-site
tenement buildings as part of an inclusionary
housing arrangement. The zoning issues
when assembling development parcels are
becoming increasingly complex, but they
remain potentially very profitable for both
developers and churches in need of funds.

At the time of writing, new construction
in the city has virtually stopped, with a handful
of projects nearing completion and a few
large-scale developments at the planning
stage. With government subsidies for housing
drastically curtailed, and borrowing for
speculative development impossible to secure
at a reasonable cost, there is a temporary
hiatus. Community advocates for responsible
development and those seeking to press
forward with landmarking see this period
as the perfect opportunity with little or no
competition in the real-estate market.

St Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery (Ithiel Town, 1795 with later additions by James
Renwick and WJ Russell in 1883). The parish house, rebuilt by Ernest Flagg in 1899
was restored in 1999.

St Paul’s Chapel, lower Manhattan, attributed to the architect Thomas McBean
and mastercraftsman Andrew Gautier, 1766. Modelled after St Martin-in-the-Fields,
Trafalgar Square, London, it is the oldest surviving church in Manhattan.
Behind the church is the former World Trade Center site.

LANDMARKING AND STEWARDSHIP

While the selling of air rights is undoubtedly
highly contentious, the most pressing
debate remains whether houses of worship
should become designated landmarks, and
if so, who should make that decision: the
congregation, which has a vested interest
in the worship space and is involved in the
day-to-day operation of the building, or
members of the public, who appreciate the
religious building from the exterior only
and as a component in the streetscape.

As benign as a designation or a National
Register listing may seem, not all churches
believe that landmarking is necessary or even
appropriate. There is deep-rooted concern that
designation works against the mission of many
congregations. No matter how well meant,
regulations are seen, initially at least, as purely
restrictive. Landmark designation can therefore
be a double-edged sword: if there is neither
the incentive nor the funds to maintain it, the
religious building property can deteriorate
to a state referred to in the US as ‘demolition
by neglect’. If, however, there is a willing and
viable congregation, there are programmes
that can provide technical assistance and in,
certain cases, financial support to repair and
preserve the house of worship. When the owner
supports designation there is no controversy but when there is opposition the delays in
resolving conflicts can take years and involve
further financial burdens. Although there are
justifiable reasons for public intervention, these
can polarise neighbourhoods as news spreads
that there are plans to sell, alter or demolish a
redundant or underused religious property.

Code compliance and replacement of
antiquated systems are equally problematic,
but no one truly considers that religious
properties should be exempt from life safety
or zoning and planning regulations and
requirements, as these become matters of
public safety, and any religious building should
be safe for the congregation as well as any
member of the visiting public. What is at stake,
according to several members of the clergy
interviewed during the preparation of this
article (and who asked that their names be
withheld), is the preservation of the centre of
worship where the buildings are of secondary
concern. There have been recent cases of
significant churches resisting the landmark
designation process, primarily because of a
reluctance to disclose and/or submit to external
review from public agencies and funding
sources for what is seen by many religious
groups as interference in the administration
and management of their property.

Significant cultural heritage is built into
the fabric of religious structures – from
the exterior stone carvings, stained glass
windows and unique architectural massing
appreciated by the community and the
tourist from the outside; to the exceptional
liturgical furnishings, organ casework and
consoles, ornamental light fixtures and other
features that often survive inside. There
is a fundamental realisation among some
architectural historians that because historic
religious buildings are largely intact, they
have become ‘period pieces’ and worthy of
appreciation as important social and cultural
milestones, particularly in areas subject to
extensive growth or re-development. On the
other hand, the very notion that a religious
building could be expected by preservationists
to remain static, as a private repository of
museum quality artefacts, has caused confusion
and resentment from congregations, who feel
that the preservationists fail to appreciate
the mission and outreach of a church. Who
are churches for? Do they exist only to house
the mission and celebrate the liturgy? Or
are they supporting features in a streetscape
appreciated by passers-by with no knowledge
of or intention of joining organised religious
groups? These viewpoints may seem like absurd
extremes but this, in essence, is the opposition
that exists between those on the one hand who
determine the significance of a structure based
on its age, architect, and historic resonance,
and those on the other who control the
property’s administration and may view it as
an asset ripe for change, development or sale.

There is no longer a guarantee that a
religious building can remain viable as an
anchor for a neighbourhood or community
in the face of escalating operating costs,
demographic and social changes. Religious
buildings now also face the inevitable
development pressure generated by the
shortage of large sites, particularly in desirable
residential urban areas where there is a need
for affordable housing, schools and healthcare
facilities. Underused properties or those
showing signs of neglect are seen as sites ripe
for development, as it is often not possible
to alter the interior to suit the changing
needs of the congregation. Additionally,
alteration or adaptation for other uses may
not be able to satisfy current code and life
safety requirements. Sadly, even with the
best intentions of the federal, state and local
designation process, protection is not always
possible. Hardship cases are often won when
the church mission is at risk: suddenly the
preservation issues become secondary.

The Church of the Transfiguration (‘The Little Church Around the Corner’), built in 1850 and later extended by
Henry Clark Withers. This church is an oasis in midtown. The sale of the air rights has made a comprehensive
building repair campaign possible.

Michael Rebic, Property Support Director
at The Episcopal Diocese of New York,
recently stated that there is no official policy
when it comes to landmarking within the
diocese: ‘The merits of landmarking are on a
case-by-case basis for both National Register
listing and local designations’, he explained,
and was then pleased to add; ‘both aspects of
preservation can work together and be mutually
beneficial’. He admitted that initially there
was some hesitation about placing buildings
on the state and national registers and some
congregations sought designation without
diocesan approval. ‘However,’ he explained,
‘once it was understood that designation did
not entail restrictions and that it could make
properties eligible for state grant funding,
most opposition disappeared immediately’.

The Episcopal Diocese of New York
maintains a cordial relationship with the New
York City Landmarks Preservation Commission,
although it is sometimes frustrated by the
extent of detail enforced or called for. Michael
Rebic is not alone in this concern – the clergy
is primarily concerned with keeping the rain
and wind out of the buildings and their church
open and occupied, while preservation officials
often seem more concerned with the use of
appropriate methods and materials for repairs.

GRANT AID (1)

Much of the current debate about landmarks
and stewardship focuses on the cost of the
work and funding sources which almost
always exclude buildings that are not already
on the National Register or are not eligible for
listing. There are advocacy groups, such as
the New York Landmarks Conservancy that
offer low interest loans and grants, and the
State of New York has grants available under
the Environmental Protection Fund, if the
property qualifies under the grant criteria.

The Episcopal Diocese of New York has
come up with a partial solution to help its
congregations by offering grants for certain
types of repairs: the Roof Reserve Fund, the
Energy Stewardship Grants, and the Material
Grant Program. All grants are targeted
towards the most significant stewardship
and maintenance problems. Michael Rebic
encourages preservation planning as a
starting point to avoid crises. Knowing the
building history and the lifespan of particular
building materials and types of structure can
save money in the long term. It also helps
congregations budget and pay for repairs that
will be durable and cost-effective over time.
Substitute materials are acceptable only if they
meet certain life-cycle criteria (40-70 years
depending on type and installation). Energy
grants are outright grants designed to reduce
energy consumption and utility expenses.

From an outsider’s perspective, the
Episcopal Diocese is perhaps unique in
thinking of ways to keep congregations working
to keep their mission and purpose strong
and their buildings healthy. Michael Rebic
admits ‘it is far easier to manage a financial
portfolio than a real estate portfolio’. As
the landmark issues recede and re-building
communities, not just religious centres, come
into focus, there is a need for churches to
fulfil obligations that the government can
no longer provide. If this continues to be
the case, what other options are there than
to protect our religious built heritage?